Radioactive dating review and reinforce answers in genesis

The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods – Biblical Geology

May 19, The Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences lists several they're turning up new evidence that can strengthen existing scenarios and lead Sense of the Patterns · The Fallacies of Radioactive Dating of Rocks Answers in Genesis is not responsible for content on the websites to which we refer. Jan 18, Without accurately known decay half-lives, all radioisotope ages cannot be any attempts in the creationist literature to review how the half-lives of the parent . a chain of radioactive daughters ending in stable isotopes of Pb. The decay of .. This appears to enhance their sensitivity as a geochronometer. Jan 8, But does this signify a major problem with radiometric dating? But fear not; an answer is at hand, in the very next frame: papers that Chick refers to, far from undermining radiometric dating, actually reinforce it. . there is an excellent review here by one of the scientists involved in Evolution Education.

Did Adam, or Noah, or Enoch script as they were living? Kinda dismisses the whole oral tradition idea, no? Not even the gospels were written until years after the fact. Ultimately, Tas has the right idea. Accept nothing fully; question everything. The cosmic challenge to logic, and the entire idea of why is life, directs down to the assumption that no one can make any absolute conclusions about anything, given the paucity of evidence proffered.

September 27, Hi Androloma: The gospels are much more reliable than you suggest. Matthew was one of Jesus disciples—an eyewitness of many of the events of Jesus life, and friends with all who were involved. Mark was a friend of Peter and Barnabas and he is mentioned many times in the NT. Luke the doctor carefully studied the events Luke 1: And John was an apostle and eyewitness John Other testimony that these are eyewitness accounts are by Paul 1 Cor A similar case could be made for the reliability of the events of Genesis.

Where did you get the idea that they are based on oral tradition? That is an evolutionary speculation assuming that mankind has been gradually improving in intelligence and technical skill over millions of years. However, Noah had the technology to be able to build a huge ocean going Ark. Moses, the traditional author of Genesis to Deuteronomy, was trained in all the skills of educated Egypt, and so was familiar with literature and able to write. I assume that he is an honest person of goodwill, who is doing his best.

He really believes that because I and most readers here accept the fact of evolution, we are going to be punished in hell for ever.

So why does he do it by pointing us towards papers that say the very opposite of what he says they say? I can only speculate that this is the result of what psychologists call confirmation bias, which leads to interpreting new information, however perversely, in a way that supports what you already think. And when we come to creationism, the motivation for bias is extreme. Young Earth creationists, knowing that their entire worldview depends on refuting radiometric dating, pounce on these examples as evidence that the method is unreliable.

All of which gives me uncomfortable pause for two reasons. If creationists are so blinded by confirmation bias, what hope is there of reasoning with them? And if I see my intellectual opponents displaying confirmation bias, completely oblivious to what they are doing, what makes me think that I am any different? Misdefinition of science to exclude all indirect inference although even Young Earth creationists accept the fact of an Ice Age on geological evidence.

Macroevolution, if the word means anything, means major change, and this takes more time than we have been watching. Similar fossils do indeed imply similar ages, but the order of these ages has been known for nearly years on the basis of stratigraphy, and absolute ages established for over years now by radiometric dating. Polystrate fossils were explained in ; the explanation is much the same today. They just develop rather differently, explaining such oddities as the tortuous path of our vagus nerves.

The development of secondary functions exaptation is commonplace. Creationists often argue, as here, that natural selection can only remove, and not add. This riddle was solved years ago, with the discovery of mutation.

Mutations supply novelty; selection winnows it. Creationists agree in explaining away pre-modern human fossils, such as Lucy and numerous others already known byas being either apes, or humans. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years.

A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8 2: This argument relates to the claimed Fall of Manin which it is posited that humans were cut off from God's life force and their genomes thus started "decaying". This is completely factually inaccurate. Not only is there no evidence of a general genetic decay, but there are known recent beneficial mutations in humans, e.

Sanford, who testified at the Kansas evolution hearings in support of intelligent design. Neither his book nor any paper promoting his concept of "genetic entropy" has ever been peer-reviewed. The last linked paper is from a peer-reviewed computer science journal; however, the paper describes the computer program itself, and does not claim any biological significance for its output.

Creationists and scientists aren't talking about the same "Eve" here. Mitochondria contain mitochondrial DNA mtDNAwhich derives from an early point in evolutionary history when mitochondria existing symbiotically with precursors to animals' cells merged. Unlike the Eve of the Bible, Mitochondrial Eve is not believed to be the first human female; she is only the most recent matrilineal common ancestor of all persons living today.

Primate's Progress

This does not imply that she was the only female around at the time, just that the mitochondrial lines of all the other women alive at that time were interrupted at some point, either by having no children or by having only sons. Mitochondrial Eve had to inherit her mtDNA from her mother, after all, and her mother inherited it from her grandmother, etc. Finally, the geography that leads biologists to their conclusions about Mitochondrial Eve's origin in East Africa is more or less conclusive disproof of the claim of the Garden of Eden as having been present in what we now call the Middle East.

This isn't necessarily evidence against a young earth per se, but certainly a problem for CMI's belief in Biblical inerrancy. The Y chromosome, unlike most DNA, is inherited only from the father, which means that all DNA on the human Y chromosome can be followed back to a single most recent common male ancestor. That male would have inherited his Y chromosome from his father, who inherited it from his father, etc.

The existence of a Y-chromosomal Adam does not mean that there was only one man alive at that time, but rather that the male-exclusive lineages of all the other men alive at that time have been broken — either by childlessness or by having only daughters.

The only factor affecting the DNA on the Y chromosome is mutation, so measuring mutation rates and extrapolating them backwards can provide an estimate of when this most recent common male ancestor lived: Note that the age estimates for Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam are not particularly close; there is no reason to suspect that they would be.

Even in the Biblical account of the Flood, Noah would be the Y-chromosome "Adam," since no other males survived the Flood except for Noah's sons. So even in creationism, the origin of mankind and the dating of Y-chromosome Adam really have nothing to do with one another. See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really? And this still leaves fossil bones which are dated many millions of years old that have been mineralized.

There are also other hard parts, notably shells, that are formed of calcium carbonate calcite or aragonite and can be found almost unchanged since deposition as far back as the Cambrian. Dinosaur bones date from as far back as million years ago. However these disputes are of the form " million years vs. Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels imgproteins img hemoglobin imgosteocalcin imgcollagen img are not consistent with their supposed age, but make more sense if the remains are young.

Claims of protein, DNA, or any other biological material extracted from dinosaur remains are, generously speaking, highly dubious. Evidence supporting such claims includes iron-bearing substances theorized to represent heme compounds found in bone marrow. Opponents contend that certain "dinosaur soft tissues " could well have been recent bacterial sediment.

Amino acid racemization dating is a technique that uses the ratio of amino acid isomers to date fossilized objects up to several millions of years into the past. Measuring the racemization of the amino acid isoleucine, for example, can date objects as far back as the claimed-implausible several million years. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.

The jellyfish have actually changed, as have the coelacanths — they aren't the same species at all, as the author claims. They merely belong to the same order: Of the life forms given as examples, only the Wollemi pine is a species, and not such an old one as claimed.

The "many hundreds of species" are out of millions of species. Only a tiny proportion of fossil species have modern counterparts. The key point, however, is that the "living fossils" didn't change much because they were well-adapted to a stable environment. This argument also presumes that the only changes are morphological — evolution also includes biochemical changes, behavioral changes, and others that are not preserved in the fossil record.

Evolution does not give creatures an expiration date. The only thing that dictates whether a species will survive is its ability to survive and reproduce in its environment better than other species, not some arbitrary number of years. Coelacanth imgWollemi pine img and various "index" fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today. Such discontinuities speak against the interpretation of the rock formations as vast geological ages—how could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years, for example?

See The "Lazarus effect": What happened was that competition from other marine life seems to have driven the coelacanths into deeper water where they survived better than those who had outcompeted them in the shallows. That's why they disappeared from the fossil record: An index fossil is a species used as an indicator by paleontologists as a working convenience.

The incorrect creationist claim that coelacanths were an index fossil originates with Kent Hovindwho misdescribes what an index fossil is, and confuses coelacanths with graptolites.

evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe - RationalWiki

This does not explain why dinosaurs other than birds are only found in the lower strata, and never not just rarely found in upper strata. If the flood was as suitable for the creation of fossils as is described, there should be more fossils than we actually find; the described mechanism would fossilise a large proportion of everything that was living at the time.

We would also expect modern animals, such as cows, to be found in the fossil record. The author's interpretation of the data is inconsistent with his stated model. The reason coelacanths are rare after 65 million years ago is that there are no locations where they could've been fossilized and uplifted.

The Mediterranean was now a much shallower sea, and the Indian Ocean segment had become shallow upon impaction with the Indian continent. The species in this area died out, unable to adapt to the reduction in their habitat. After this, there would be no tectonic uplift in the region, meaning that the coelacanth fossils would be deep in the ocean floor. The Indonesian coelacanth has not been fossilized because of similar conditions.

In their location, trenches formed allowing for the transfer of coelacanths, which were then trapped in Indonesian waters. The trenches have consistently been getting larger, and new land is not being uplifted, meaning that fossils cannot reach the surface.

The ages of the world's oldest living organisms, trees imgare consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years. The oldest living individual trees are younger than 6, years — but dendrochronologywhich the linked article endorses, is not limited to studying a single tree. Because the thickness of rings differs depending on weather conditions during each season, tree ring patterns can be matched between living and dead trees, extending the record beyond the lifetime of a single tree.

In suitable places, the record has been extended this way to roughly 11, years before present. Regardless of the age of individual trees, Pando, a massive clonal colony of aspen in Utah verified by genetic markers to be a single monolithic organism — at a weight of 6, tons, by far the heaviest on Earth — has a lower bound on its age projections of 80, years and may be as old as a million years.

Current scientific opinion is that the oldest living organisms are sea grasses, not trees, and the oldest known example has been given an age in the vicinity of 80, toyears. See Origins 21 1: Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways animalsbut is almost devoid of plants.

The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah's day. This eliminates supposed evidence for millions of years. Plants are almost completely soft tissue and so most of their remains decay very quickly. Animals, on the other hand, have bones and teeth, and shells, etc.

Owing to the transitory nature of tracks, no modern geologist insists that they were buried over eons. They all recognise that a special event which covered the tracks took place — which does not imply a global flood, but only a small-scale local event. If tracks were buried in situ over eons, then the Earth would be covered in them.